People v. Redman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Redman

275 A.D.2d 658, 713 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9960

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 658 (People v. Redman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Redman, 275 A.D.2d 658, 713 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered May 13, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2V3 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Where defendant, during his direct testimony, gave the jury a misleading impression of the nature of the property on his person at the time of his arrest, he opened the door to evidence concerning a crack pipe that had been previously precluded by the court’s Sandoval ruling. It should be noted that the court specifically cautioned the defense to be wary of any testimony which might open the door to permit such cross-examination. Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in modifying its ruling to permit cross-examination by the prosecutor on that subject in order to impeach defendant’s credibility (see, People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646).

Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, defendant could [659]*659not have been prejudiced by the court’s refusal to give a limiting instruction concerning the crack pipe. Since defendant requested a completely different limiting instruction, defendant’s present claim that the court should have instructed the jury that the crack pipe was only relevant to credibility is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find any error in this regard to be harmless. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered May 13, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2V3 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Where defendant, during his direct testimony, gave the jury a misleading impression of the nature of the property on his person at the time of his arrest, he opened the door to evidence concerning a crack pipe that had been previously precluded by the court’s Sandoval ruling. It should be noted that the court specifically cautioned the defense to be wary of any testimony which might open the door to permit such cross-examination. Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in modifying its ruling to permit cross-examination by the prosecutor on that subject in order to impeach defendant’s credibility (see, People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646).

Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, defendant could [659]*659not have been prejudiced by the court’s refusal to give a limiting instruction concerning the crack pipe. Since defendant requested a completely different limiting instruction, defendant’s present claim that the court should have instructed the jury that the crack pipe was only relevant to credibility is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find any error in this regard to be harmless. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 658, 713 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-redman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack